D.C. COURTS

Staffing Level

Determination Could

Be More Rigorous

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

August 1999

GAO/GGD-99-162

United States General Accounting Office General Government Division

Washington, D.C. 20548

Page 1 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing

B-282696

August 27, 1999

The Honorable Ernest J. Istook Jr.

Chairman, Subcommittee on the District of Columbia

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable Tom Davis

Chairman, Subcommittee on the District of Columbia

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable James P. Moran

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

This report responds in part to your request for information concerning

personnel management in the District of Columbia courts. Specifically, this

report provides information about staffing and workload levels for the

courts from 1989 through 1998, assesses how the courts evaluate the

sufficiency of the levels of nonjudicial staff who work on processing and

disposition of cases, and compares the D.C. courts’ staffing methodology

to other available methodologies. We will respond to the other parts of

your request in a future report.

Overall staffing levels in the D.C. courts increased between 1989 and 1990,

declined slightly with some fluctuations through 1997, and then decreased

below the 1989 level in 1998. Cases available for disposition increased

slightly during this time in the D.C. Superior Court, the largest part of the

courts, while its backlog increased substantially. The cases available for

disposition, and the backlog, of the far smaller D.C. Court of Appeals

increased steadily over this period. In both courts, the mix of different

types of cases has changed over this period.

District of Columbia court officials said that they consider caseload data,

along with other data, in judging whether staffing levels are appropriate.

For example, the Chief Judge of the Superior Court said that if the number

of filings and case dispositions increased in a given branch, while the case

backlog decreased, the implication is that the staffing level is appropriate.

Results in Brief
B-282696

Page 2 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing

According to court officials, staffing decisions are made on a year-by-year

basis and are made individually for each division of the Superior Court and

Court of Appeals.

The courts’ methodology does not provide a comprehensive review of

what staffing levels should be because it does not consider the amount of

staff time and resources that are needed for case processing. Caseload

trends alone do not show whether a unit is overstaffed or understaffed

because they do not account for how much time is needed to process

differing types of cases or for productivity improvements. For example, if a

court’s caseload remained constant, but the types of cases shifted from

those taking relatively smaller amounts of time to cases requiring much

more time, the court could be understaffed for the amount of work

required to process the cases.

Methodologies that consider the amount of staff time and resources

required to process different types of cases in determining the sufficiency

of staffing levels do exist. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has

devised a databased system to determine staffing levels needed for a given

workload, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) uses

a databased system to distribute resources among the federal courts. We

make a recommendation in this report that the D.C. courts review the

amount of time needed to process cases to determine what staffing levels

are sufficient to process the courts’ caseload.

The District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of

1970 established the D.C. courts in their present form. The courts consist

of the D.C. Superior Court, the D.C. Court of Appeals, and the D.C. Court

System. Judges of the D.C. courts are appointed by the President and are

subject to confirmation by the Senate.

The D.C. Superior Court has general jurisdiction over virtually all local

legal matters. It consists of 59 active full-time judges, several senior judges

who work part-time, and 15 hearing commissioners who exercise limited

judicial functions. The D.C. Superior Court has several divisions that

process and dispose of cases, including divisions for civil, criminal,

probate, and family cases. The court also has divisions that do not process

cases but provide alternative dispute resolution services and handle the

juvenile probation function. There are also divisions that perform support

functions for the court, such as the personnel division.

The D.C. Court of Appeals is the highest court in the District of Columbia.

It has nine active full-time judges, and several senior judges serving partBackground
B-282696

Page 3 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing

time, who usually sit in three-judge panels. Appeals from the D.C. Court of

Appeals are taken to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The D.C. Court System does not process cases but provides administrative

services to the Superior Court and Court of Appeals, including fiscal

services, education and training, data processing, personnel management,

and court reporting.

A Joint Committee on Judicial Administration governs the D.C. Courts. The

Chief Judges of the D.C. Superior Court and D.C. Court of Appeals (both

designated by the D.C. Judicial Nominations Commission from among the

active judges for a 4-year term) serve on this committee, with the Chief

Judge of the Court of Appeals serving as committee chair. In addition,

another Court of Appeals judge elected by the Court of Appeals judges,

and two Superior Court judges elected by their colleagues, serve on the

Joint Committee.

The Joint Committee appoints an executive officer who serves at the

pleasure of the Joint Committee. The executive officer is responsible for

the administration of the courts and can appoint and remove, with the

consent of the Joint Committee, all D.C. court personnel (including the

Clerks of the Superior Court and Court of Appeals) except for the judges’

law clerks and secretaries and the D.C. Register of Wills.

Until fiscal year 1998, the D.C. courts’ budget was submitted by the Joint

Committee on Judicial Administration, through the D.C. Mayor and

Council, to the President and Congress. The budget was forwarded by the

Mayor and Council without revision but subject to recommendations. The

D.C. Revitalization Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33) changed this process so that

the Joint Committee now submits its budget directly to the Office of

Management and Budget, and the Courts’ estimates are included in the

President’s budget submission to Congress, without revision but subject to

the President’s recommendations.

Our objectives were to provide information on staffing and workload

levels for the D.C. courts from 1989 through 1998, assess how the D.C.

courts evaluate the sufficiency of their nonjudicial case processing staff

levels, and compare the D.C. courts’ methodologies to other available

methodologies. For the purpose of this review, we defined staff as

personnel who perform case processing and disposition functions for the

D.C. Superior Court and the D.C. Court of Appeals, such as clerks, bailiffs,

court reporters, administrators, and so on. This definition does not include

judges or their law clerks and secretaries.

Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology
B-282696

Page 4 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing

To achieve the first objective, we obtained from the courts copies of their

annual reports from 1989 through 1998, which contain workload data. We

obtained staffing level data for 1989 through 1998 from the Executive

Office of the D.C. Courts. We did not independently verify data obtained

from the courts.

To achieve the second objective, we obtained relevant reports and

documents from the D.C. courts and interviewed the clerks of the Superior

Court and the Court of Appeals and the acting personnel director for the

D.C. courts. We subsequently sent a letter to the Chief Judges of the

Superior Court and Court of Appeals, asking for a statement of how staff

levels were determined and for a statement of the courts’ position

concerning the possibility of a databased study of staffing levels. We

received separate replies from the Chief Judges of the Superior Court and

Court of Appeals, the contents of which are discussed in this report. We

also surveyed a representative sample of D.C. court employees in February

1999 on their perceptions of personnel management in the D.C. courts;

several of the questions in the survey referred to staffing.

To achieve the third objective, we held discussions with officials of

AOUSC and reviewed documents provided by these officials. We also

discussed state court staffing with officials of NCSC, which is a

clearinghouse for state court information and which provides consulting,

conference, and educational services to the state courts. We obtained

documents from NCSC concerning its methodology for state court staffing

reviews and information on actual reviews done in several states.

We did our work from January through June 1999 in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards. We requested

comments from the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration of the D.C.

courts. The comments are discussed near the end of this letter and

reprinted in appendix I.

As shown in table 1, staffing levels in the D.C. courts, excluding judges and

their law clerks and secretaries, as measured by full-time equivalents

(FTE), were 5.7 percent lower in fiscal year 1998 than in fiscal year 1989.

There was about a 10 percent increase in FTE levels for 1990 compared

with 1989. FTE levels fluctuated between 1,231 and 1,187 during the period

from fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 1997. There was a decrease of

about 11 percent in FTE levels in fiscal year 1998.

Trends in D.C. Courts’

Staffing and Workload
B-282696

Page 5 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing

FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998

Superior Courta 1,005 1,100 1,090 1,063 1,082 1,071 1,057 1,058 1,032 889

Court of Appealsa 34 41 41 41 43 47 43 42 44 47

Court System 77 90 93 98 93 103 106 102 111 116

Total 1,116 1,231 1,224 1,202 1,218 1,221 1,206 1,202 1,187 1,052

a

Excludes judges and their law clerks and secretaries.

Source: Executive Office of the D.C. Courts.

FTEs in the Superior Court increased by approximately 10 percent

between fiscal years 1989 and 1990; declined, with some fluctuations, by

about 6 percent through fiscal year 1997; then decreased by about 14

percent in fiscal year 1998. According to a court official, most of the

increase in FTEs in 1990 was due to staff associated with eight additional

judgeships that were filled in that year. Much of the 1998 decrease in FTEs

was attributed to the removal from the courts of the responsibility for

adult probation by the D.C. Revitalization Act of 1997.1

The FTEs for the Court of Appeals increased by approximately 21 percent

between fiscal years 1989 and 1990 and then remained relatively constant

thereafter. The stability in FTEs after 1990 was associated with the

institution of a case management system in 1990 that was aimed at

enhancing the efficiency of processing appeals.

The Court System, although not directly involved in case processing or

disposition, was the only part of the courts to show FTE increases during

almost all of this period, with the fiscal year 1998 FTE level 50.6 percent

above that of 1989. The rise in staffing levels in the Court System,

according to the Executive Officer of the D.C. courts, was due to an

increase from 51 to 59 Superior Court judges in 1990, the assumption by

the courts (from the D.C. Department of Administrative Services) of

responsibility for janitorial services in court buildings in 1993, and the

assumption by the courts (from the D.C. Department of Public Works) of

responsibility for all maintenance of court buildings in 1996.

Table 2 shows the workload of the Superior Court during the calendar year

period from 1989 through 1998. Cases available for disposition in the

 

1

According to a D.C. courts official, the decrease in the Superior Court’s FTEs from 1,032 in fiscal year

1997 to 889 in fiscal year 1998 resulted from the Superior Court’s transferring 163 filled positions to the

Court Services and Offender Supervision Trustee for the District of Columbia, created by the D.C.

Revitalization Act, and the normal fluctuation in staffing (i.e., filling vacant authorized positions). This

resulted in a net loss of approximately140 FTEs between fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998.

Table 1: D.C. Court FTEs, Fiscal Years 1989 Through 1998
B-282696

Page 6 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing

Superior Court decreased 2.8 percent during this period, while cases

pending increased 36.5 percent.

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Cases available

for dispositiona

244,405 241,204 248,752 255,194 247,186 243,141 242,885 241,131 241,201 237,612

Percent change N/Ab (1.3) 3.1 2.6 (3.1) (1.6) (0.1) (0.7) 0.0 (1.5)

Cases pending

(year end) 39,925 39,509 49,501 47,896 45,229 52,219 43,834 52,087 53,786 54,513

Percent change 5.6 (0.7) 25.1 (2.4) (5.1) 15.5 (16.1) 17.7 3.3 1.4

a

Includes cases pending at the beginning of the year, cases filed in current year, and cases filed in

previous years that were reactivated or became “at issue” during the year.

b

N/A represents not applicable.

Sources: Annual Reports of the D.C. Courts and Executive Office of the D.C. Courts.

The overall workload statistics shown in table 2 are combinations of

different types of cases, and the mix of case types in the workload can vary

over time. For example, of cases filed in 1989, 13.0 percent were felony

cases, and 15.9 percent were misdemeanor or traffic cases. In 1998, 5.8

percent of filings were felony cases, and 19.9 percent were misdemeanor

or traffic cases. Court officials pointed out several factors that have the

potential of affecting their pending caseload, in addition to changes in the

mix of cases over time. For example, the use of therapeutic case

processing alternatives, such as those used in drug court or with domestic

violence cases, may extend the life of a case on a pending caseload while

they also result in the rehabilitation of the offender.

The caseload of the D.C. Court of Appeals significantly increased during

this same period, as shown in table 3.

1989 a 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Cases available

for dispositionb 3,881 3,887 3,616 3,463 3,646 3,680 3,925 4,454 4,763 4,592

Percent change (2.3) 0.0 (7.0) (4.2) 5.3 0.1 6.7 13.5 6.9 (3.6)

Cases pending

(year-end) 2,283 2,089 1,853 1,945 1,991 2,093 2,443 2,671 2,634 2,694

Percent change (2.7) (8.5) (11.3) 5.0 2.4 5.1 16.7 9.3 (1.4) 2.3

a

 In 1994 the Court of Appeals revised its data reporting to exclude rehearings from its case totals.

The Court made this revision for prior year data, from 1990 through 1993 but not for 1989 data. There

were 19 rehearings granted in 1989, 27 in 1990, 40 in 1991, 33 in 1992, and 23 in 1993.

b

Includes cases pending at the beginning of the year, cases filed during the year, and cases

reinstated.

Sources: Annual Reports of the D.C. Courts and Executive Office of the D.C. Courts.

Table 2: Superior Court Workload, 1989 Through 1998

Table 3: D. C. Court of Appeals Workload, 1989 Through 1998
B-282696

Page 7 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing

The total number of Court of Appeals cases available for disposition in

1998 was 18.3 percent greater than in 1989, and the number of pending

cases at year-end was 18.0 percent greater. In 1989, 42.3 percent of the

court’s new filings were criminal cases, and 32.1 percent were civil cases;

of 1998 filings, 39.4 percent were criminal, and 23.2 percent were civil. In

both years, the balance of the cases fell into a number of categories,

including family or agency proceedings. Overall appeal filings were 28

percent higher in 1998 than in 1989.

In three reports issued from 1980 through 1990,2

 we recommended to

certain federal agencies increased emphasis on workforce planning and set

forth the basic elements of such planning. Among these elements was that

of identifying the number of employees needed to accomplish agency

goals. We specifically identified collecting and analyzing data on staff time

required to fulfill agency goals as an important element of workforce

planning.

We asked D.C. court officials how they evaluate staffing needs. Officials of

the D.C. courts said that workload data are used to assess the staffing

needs of the courts. The Chief Judge of the Superior Court said that he

monitors the court’s case inventory and case processing and relies on

actual observation of service delivery and review of customer complaints

and compliments. According to the chief judge, if customers are being

“courteously, fairly, accurately, and expeditiously serviced,” the court’s

workforce is considered appropriate for its needs.

The chief judge gave several examples of such assessments. One example

referred to the Felony Branch of the Criminal Division, for which filings

and dispositions had declined from 1994 through 1998, and cases pending

and the backlog had decreased in the same period. According to the chief

judge, this implied that case processing is within acceptable limits and that

therefore the branch’s workforce is appropriate. The chief judge also

noted, however, that other branches’ backlogs have increased, indicating

that their staffing was not sufficient. He cited as an example the

Misdemeanor and Traffic Branch of the Criminal Division, for which the

backlog increased substantially, from 1996 through 1998, although case

filings and dispositions went up and down in volume from year to year.

 

2

Federal Work Force Planning: Time for Renewed Emphasis (FPCD-81-4, Dec. 30,1980); Managing

Human Resources: Greater OPM Leadership Needed to Address Critical Challenges (GAO/GGD-89-19,

Jan. 19, 1989); U.S. Department of Agriculture: Need for Improved Workforce Planning (GAO/RCED-90-

97, Mar. 6, 1990).

How the D. C. Courts

Evaluate Sufficiency of

Staffing Levels
B-282696

Page 8 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing

The Clerk of the Superior Court told us that decisions on changes in

staffing from the previous year are made separately for each division of the

court. If a division director indicates more staff is needed, the clerk will try

to meet those needs by moving members of the workforce around between

working units while maintaining the same overall workforce numbers.3

 The

clerk said that he will usually approve new hiring only for a new function

or program. The clerk is to send staffing recommendations to the

executive officer and the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration for

inclusion in the budget.

Similar to the Chief Judge of the Superior Court, the Chief Judge of the

Court of Appeals also said that the court uses indicators such as case

filings, number and types of dispositions, cases pending, time involved in

various stages of the process, and general mix of cases. With these data,

according to the chief judge, the clerk and staff of the court identify

staffing needs and possible management efficiencies.

The Clerk of the Court of Appeals said that, as with the Superior Court,

staffing decisions are made on a functional basis for each division of the

court, rather than for the court as a whole.

We also obtained the perspective of D.C. court employees concerning

court staffing. As part of our overall review of personnel practices in the

D.C. courts, we mailed out a questionnaire in February 1999 to a random,

representative sample of court employees to get their views on the courts’

personnel practices. More than 70 percent of those employees in the

sample who were working for the courts answered our questionnaire. In

addition to their perceptions regarding selected personnel practices, we

asked for their views on the adequacy of staffing levels. We estimated that

about 40 percent of the courts’ employees would agree or strongly agree

that their work unit had a sufficient number of employees to do its job and

about 49 percent would disagree or strongly disagree, while the remaining

percentage would neither agree nor disagree, not be sure, or have no basis

to judge. A similar question was asked of federal employees in a 1996

governmentwide survey. About 43 percent said their work unit had a

sufficient number of employees, while about 47 percent disagreed or

strongly disagreed and the remaining percentage neither agreed nor

disagreed.

 

3

According to the Executive Office of the D.C. courts, transfers of personnel between the Superior

Court, Court of Appeals, and Court System are possible, but rarely happen in practice.
B-282696

Page 9 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing

The federal court system and some state court systems use formulas based

on court workload data to determine satisfactory levels of staffing and

resources. The federal court system uses a databased system to distribute

resources to the U.S. Appellate, District, and Bankruptcy Courts, and the

Probation and Pretrial Services Offices. Prior to the adoption of this

system, these courts had received resources on the basis of total number

of people employed and cases heard in a given year. However, court

administrators came to realize that this system did not distribute resources

efficiently because it did not take into account that certain types of court

activities will take more time and resources than other types of activities.

The system is based on a large number of various workload statistics,

which are fed into “work measurement formulas.” Based on the statistics

and the formulas, a specific number of “work units” are allocated to each

federal judicial district and circuit. Such work units consider tasks

associated with the nature and types of cases, given a standard rate of

efficiency (how much time and resources such cases should take). Each

work unit is equal to a certain amount of money, the exact amount

depending on overall budget levels. The managers of each court can use

their allocation to hire or retain staff or to make capital purchases to

improve court productivity.

NCSC has developed and promulgated a “weighted caseload” system.

Under this system, officials determine how much time is taken up by

different types of cases in the court or courts under study. The officials

then determine how much judge or staff time is taken up by the court’s

caseload as “weighted” by the time factor and compare total judge or staff

years, as calculated, with the actual judges or staff available. How much

time is taken up by a certain type of case can be determined by actual

measurement of cases in court or by the “Delphi” method of getting judges,

staff, or outside experts to estimate the length of time certain cases would

take. For example, if a court had five full-time staff members (and thus 5

staff years), and it was determined that the court’s annual workload would

take 7 staff years to complete, there would be a need for two additional

staff members. However, it could also be found that the court’s workload

required only 4 staff years, in which case there would be one more staff

member than needed.

This system was developed to give state government decisionmakers an

independent, objective way to evaluate the need for court personnel, based

on the actual amount of time and resources different court activities

should take. It has been used in at least 11 states, in most instances to

determine how many judges are needed in a state. However, the method

has been used to determine appropriate levels of court staff in New Jersey,

Methods Used by

Other Courts
B-282696

Page 10 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing

Colorado, and Kentucky. In Colorado, a weighted caseload study led to the

addition of 30 to 40 court staffers statewide. In Kentucky, NCSC found that

the level of case processing staff was appropriate in rural counties but that

urban areas may need more staff.

In promulgating this method and advocating its use, NCSC acknowledges

that decisions on the size of a court or court staff cannot, and should not,

be based solely on results obtained by a statistical model. Data from the

model, according to NCSC, must be interpreted in a social, cultural, and

political context, and factors peculiar to each court and court circuit

should be considered.

We asked the D.C. courts for their views on having a databased analysis

done on the staffing of the courts, what advantages or disadvantages there

would be in such an analysis, and whether there were features and

qualities of the D.C. courts that would preclude such an analysis. The Chief

Judge of the Superior Court had no objection to databased analysis of the

court’s support staff, based on the work protocols used in the federal

courts, provided that the actual instrument used was developed under the

court’s supervision. He believed such an analysis could be helpful to more

accurately measure the appropriate workforce for divisions that did not

process cases and to check the present case processing measurement used

in the clerk’s office.

The Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, in her response, indicated that

NCSC has had a great deal of experience with methodologies that might be

effectively used for such a study and, therefore, is in a better position to

identify the advantages and disadvantages of each. According to the chief

judge, the primary determinants for a court system in doing such studies

are resource related, and such studies seem to address discrete

components of the court. The chief judge pointed out that the D.C. courts

were a two-tiered system as opposed to the three-tiered system that exists

in most states.4

 She said that whether there are unique features that would

impede such an analysis in the D.C. courts might depend upon which area

of the courts is selected for study. The chief judge added that, given the

small size of the Court of Appeals, the cost of any study of it would likely

outweigh the benefits.

 4

The D.C. courts have two levels—the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals. Eleven state systems

also have two levels; the remaining state systems have a lower court, an intermediate court, and a

court of final appeal.
B-282696

Page 11 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing

While D.C. court officials apparently consider caseload data in judging

whether staffing levels are adequate, they have not measured the amount

of time required by case processing staff to process differing types of cases

nor used such data to determine whether the size of the courts’ workforce

is inadequate, adequate, or excessive for the work of the courts. Workload

and formula-based methods of assessing the adequacy of case processing

staffing levels do exist and are in use in the federal and state courts.

Whether the D.C. courts have too many or too few case processing staff for

their caseload is a question that cannot be answered without a systematic

study.

The Chief Judge of the Superior Court believed that such a study

employing the work measurement protocol used in the federal judiciary

could be helpful. The Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals questioned

whether the small size of the appeals court would make a study of the

court cost-beneficial. While we believe that the results of such a study

could serve as a baseline for the courts and Congress to evaluate court

staffing in the future, we recognize that in planning such a project the D.C.

courts should weigh potential costs and benefits in determining the

project’s scope, including the components that should or should not be

covered.

We recommend that the D.C. courts review the amount of time required to

process different types of cases and analyze other elements of the courts’

workload to determine what staffing levels are sufficient to process the

D.C. courts’ caseload. We recommend that, before planning or

implementing such a review (including selecting components to be

covered and balancing costs and benefits), the courts consult with others

who have used workload-based methodologies to evaluate court case

processing staffing levels.

The Chair of the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration of the D.C.

Courts provided the courts’ written comments on a draft of this report. The

courts said that they had no objection to conducting a study of staffing

levels using a workload-based methodology, provided that funds are

available. They asked that we include a request for such funds in our

recommendation. The courts also pointed out that the methodology

employed by NCSC, as explained in the draft, has been used in only three

states and suggested that we make clear that the courts use a number of

factors in assessing the need for staff, most of which are used in other

jurisdictions.

Conclusion

Recommendation

D.C. Courts’

Comments and Our

Evaluation
B-282696

Page 12 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing

We recognize that the determinants for doing such a study include

resource issues. Once the necessary planning for such a study is

completed, including determining its scope, we believe it would be

appropriate for the courts to consult with Congress on the matter of

funding. To the best of our knowledge and that of NCSC, only three states

have done such a study. However, this is not to say that other jurisdictions

have not conducted databased studies to assess the adequacy of their

staffing levels using similar methodologies. We did not examine that issue.

Our objective was to point out that workload-based methodologies exist.

The courts said that our description of its methodology for determining

staffing needs was inaccurate, apparently because we did not refer to

internal budget requests that are prepared by court divisions. We did not

do so because the budget requests dealt with staffing needs only in an

incremental manner. Where division managers requested individual staff,

they did so to meet an increase in workload from the previous year, such

as when the court took on a new statutory responsibility; in these cases,

there was no attempt to review whether a division’s staffing level was

appropriate for its overall workload. Our depiction of the courts’

methodology for assessing the adequacy of staffing levels was based on

descriptions provided by officials of the Superior Court and Court of

Appeals.

The courts took exception to our reference in the draft report to previous

reports issued by GAO recommending increased emphasis on workload

planning by federal agencies. The courts believed that our reference to

these reports is misleading and gives the impression that the courts were

mandated to follow these earlier recommendations. The courts were not

mandated to follow these earlier recommendations. We believe these

reports provide useful context for our recommendations, and we

specifically point out in the text of this report that the recommendations

were made to certain federal agencies.

The courts elaborated on the staffing and workload data provided in the

draft report. They also provided technical clarifications as well as

suggestions for the report’s presentation. We incorporated these as

appropriate.
B-282696

Page 13 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing

We are providing a copy of this report to Representatives C.W. Bill Young,

Chairman, and David Obey, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on

Appropriations; Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Minority

Member, Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Committee on

Government Reform; Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison, Chairwoman, and

Richard Durbin, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on the District

of Columbia, Committee on Appropriations; Senator George Voinovich,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,

Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Governmental

Affairs; and Representative Julian Dixon. We are also providing copies to

the District of Columbia courts, the National Center for State Courts, and

the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. We will make copies available

to others on request.

If you have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-8676. Key

contributors to the report included Richard W. Caradine, Domingo D.

Nieves, and Steven J. Berke.

Michael Brostek

Associate Director, Federal Management

 and Workforce Issues
Page 14 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts’ Staffing

Contents

1 Letter

16

GAO Comments 24 Appendix I

Comments From the

D.C. Courts

Table 1: D.C. Court FTEs, Fiscal Years 1989 Through

1998

5

Table 2: Superior Court Workload, 1989 Through 1998 6

Table 3: D. C. Court of Appeals Workload, 1989 Through

1998

6

Tables

Abbreviations

AOUSC Administrative Office of the United States Courts

FTE full-time equivalent

NCSC National Center for State Courts
Page 15 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts’ Staffing
Appendix I

Comments From the D.C. Courts

Page 16 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.
Appendix I

Comments From the D.C. Courts

Page 17 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing

See p. 12.

See comment 1.

Now p. 1.
Appendix I

Comments From the D.C. Courts

Page 18 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing

See comment 4.

See comment 2.

See comment 3.

Now p. 2.

See p. 12.

Now p. 1.

Now pp. 1-2.

Now p. 2.

Now pp. 2-3.

Now p. 3.
Appendix I

Comments From the D.C. Courts

Page 19 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing

See comment 6.

Now p. 6.

See p. 5.

See comment 5.

Now p. 5.

Now p. 3.

Now p. 3.

Now p. 3.
Appendix I

Comments From the D.C. Courts

Page 20 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing

Now p. 7.

See comment 7.

Now p. 6.
Appendix I

Comments From the D.C. Courts

Page 21 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing

See comment 8.

See p. 12.
Appendix I

Comments From the D.C. Courts

Page 22 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing
Appendix I

Comments From the D.C. Courts

Page 23 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing
Appendix I

Comments From the D.C. Courts

Page 24 GAO/GGD-99-162 D.C. Courts' Staffing

The following are GAO’s comments on the letter from the Chair of the

Joint Committee on Judicial Administration of the D.C. Courts, dated

August 17, 1999:

1. The courts recommended a change in the title of our report. We believe

that the title is objective and accurately reflects our conclusions and

recommendation.

2. The courts noted an inconsistency between our characterization of the

D.C. Court of Appeals caseload on page 1 and elsewhere in the body of

the report. We have corrected page 1.

3. The courts suggested that wording used in the body of the report to

discuss Court of Appeals staffing methodology be reproduced in the

Results in Brief. The purpose of Results in Brief is to summarize the

discussion in the body of the report; replicating the entire discussion in

the body would be redundant.

4. The courts made a number of suggestions for technical revisions in the

Background section of our report. We have made these revisions in the

Background section of our report where appropriate.

5. The courts provided FTE data exclusive of judges and their law clerks

and secretaries. We have adjusted table 1 on page 5 to reflect this data.

6. The courts commented that our presentation of workload data did not

present a complete picture in that it did not reflect the causal factors

that account for increased backlog. We included some of the courts’

explanation on page 6.

7. The courts suggested we include data on appeal filings in our

presentation of Court of Appeals caseload data. We have done so in the

text on page 7.

8. The Courts said that our recommendation should include a request that

funds be appropriated to cover the cost of a databased study. We

address this issue on page 12.

GAO Comments
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional

copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address,

accompanied by a check or money order made out to the

Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and

MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more

copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.

Order by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax

number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony.

To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past

30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touch-tone phone. A

recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these

lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100

(410415)